W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: BP doc edits

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:41:13 +0900
Message-ID: <478CA9E9.3090608@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Yves, all

Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The BP doc and a few additional files have been updated in CVS:
>
> Here is what I did:
>
> - Made the spelling of "ITS r/Rule/s document" consistent ("ITS Rules document")
>
> - Replace all entries in the two summary table by the latest edited text (Editors, please, make sure to update it if you change the
> corresponding text in the BP itself). 
> This should take care of action item #57.
>   
there was a spelling error, "providinga", I fixed it in CVS.
> - Created EX-devlocnotes-3.xml for example 11. As well as Ex-devlocnotes-4.xml and EX-devlocnotes-4.html for the example 10. (We
> were still missing it). Please have a look at those two examples (10 and 11) to make sure I didn't introduced any mistakes
> (http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/its-techniques.html#DevLocNote)
>
> - Made consistent "1st/First" "2nd/Second", etc ("First", "Second", etc.)
>
> - Added a few missing links to source code in a couple of example.
>
> - Updated the 'Revision Log' section. BTW, Felix: Will this section be removed when publishing the final Note, or will it stay
> there? It seems pointless to have it, no?
>   
yes, it's pointless, I'll remove it. I created an action ACTION-58 to 
remind me of that.

>
> Also:
>
> - The note just above BP 1 syas "The following provides some good additional reading: [Ed. note: TODO: point to references].". Since
> we don't seem to have any place to point to, I would propose to remove that last sentence.
>   
agree.
> - There are a few Ed. Notes left in the document that we should resolve.
>   
[Ed. note: maybe we should point to the BP "Handling attribute values 
and element content in different languages"]: Would be fine with me

[Ed. note: I'm inclined to think we should spell out what's happening 
here a little more.]: Related to Example 17. We could just change the 
example description to:
"This document shows how a set of ITS rules can be easily included along 
with customized information, like an informal description, the namespace 
of the vocabulary which applies the ITS rules, or an identifier and 
version information for the rules."
I would also propose to change "Open University" to something different, 
e.g. "Example Institution".

Cheers,

Felix
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 12:41:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:09 UTC